there was a debate this morning in general chat over abstract art
and perf 0.4 wanted to do a poll on it so
- abstract art is art
- abstract art isn’t art
0 voters
debate in replies!!
debate in replies!!
tbh, anything can be art. Like if I just paint blood all over my canvas, I’ll still call it a art
It really depends honestly. If it’s like random splats of paint everywhere then no. Since anyone without experience could do that. What mac posted above is abstract art I actually consider art.
I agree. However, JTN is right and anything could “technically” be art–even if it’s horrible.
Art that people take no effort in and hustle money out of… like this piece of cr*p here–boi are you going to be abstract art if I ever meet you.
To many, anything can be art. Quest, I recognize that banana from the Met in New York. Parents went there before Corona. Supposedly sold for A LOT. (VERY prestigious Art Gallery, won all kinds of awards.)
3 Likes
Art isn’t just “I like it and it has detail.”
Art is probably one of the most subjective terms ever, and I mean that legitimately (I did say probably though implying I am not sure, doesn’t take away from the fact that I mean it.)
This leaves for a large space of content to be defined as art. I generally wouldn’t assume abstract is just “I put paint on paper”. Sure it can be and there will be examples, but I don’t think this is the dominant reason for abstract art.
Understanding abstract art does not come naturally for everyone. It is the kind of art that makes some people scratch their heads and say, “My 5-year old could do that.” What people don’t realize is that the best abstract artists have excellent drawing skills, a finely honed sense of composition, and a deep understanding of the workings of color. Most abstract artists have the ability to draw a perfectly rendered rose or a realistic portrait, but they choose not to. Instead they choose to express their creativity by creating a visual experience that is more free and unencumbered by the weight of objects.
Abstract art can also make people uneasy because they don’t automatically know what the art is “about” just by a cursory glance. Or they assume that because it doesn’t look like anything, then it is not “about” anything. Abstract art doesn’t contain recognizeable objects, so there is nothing to grasp or hold onto. This can be very confusing, even threatening, to some who are not used to assigning their own meaning to what they see before them.
From art is fun:
“The truth is, abstract art is not “about nothing”. At its basis, it is about form, color, line, texture, pattern, composition and process. These are the formal qualities of artwork, because they describe what the art looks like and how it is created. Abstract art is an exploration of these formal qualities. Meaning is derived from how these formal qualities are used to create a visual (and/or visceral, cerebral, emotional, etc) experience.”
I honestly don’t think that not understanding abstract art is not understanding art, or that not liking abstract art is an issue (I don’t even like it), but I think that there is a major difference in understanding art between people that understand abstract art and people that can’t even find a reason for it being art. I honestly feel like this attitude stems from the same people who learn in Language Arts/English/Writing classes and think “this is not that deep” when it actually is, symbolism isn’t made up by L.A. teachers to make life harder, and I can assure you looking for symbolism helps you enjoy content much more and even learn something.
Also, since you are actively working your brain to find this symbolism I would honestly say it requires intelligence. Many people only attribute intelligence to people with very harshly left-brained thinking—the math and science guys—but understanding metaphors and symbolism can help understanding the big picture and how many factors can create significant results rather than merely just understanding details like the classic “I gave you statistics that guarantees my point is correct” kid. Intelligence isn’t limited to STEMlords and I feel like seeing it this way is very limited.
“But it’s just an excuse to make money”
There are many definitions of art but I don’t see any definition of art specifically stating “the art must not be an excuse for making money.”
Sure, people can just literally splatter paint for money and call it art, I think that’s up for debate on whether that’s considered abstract art, I just consider that faking abstract art, but even then you could argue that it’s still abstract art. Either way I don’t see how this invalidates people who actually do abstract art legitimately. If I’m on a political grift and only do my politics for the money it isn’t suddenly not politics, even if I’m doing it for money it’s still politics. And if I’m lying about statistics that doesn’t make all statistics invalid.
3 Likes
Sometimes abstract art also portrays no true meaning and the artist leaves it to the audience to translate or grasp a conclusion to it. Sometimes it’s meant to convey emotions or throw objects associated to specific ideas into the fray. Fluect, I really like how you also mention that just because the art is abstract, doesn’t mean the artist is bad. It can just mean that they feel like portraying a something that’s a lot more unspecific or obscure as compared to a more recognizable form.
To me? anything can be art. music, coding, comedy, to me it’s all a form of art
1 Like
It sure did 
Yes, art is art. You can prefer art over other art, but art will still be art
Look, I can put a pair of sunglasses in a canvas and still calling it art
Who decide what is art is the artist,not the viewers
Abstract Art like obviously has some sort of pattern to it is art
you can’t just toss a paint bucket at the canvas and call that art
cause I can do that
and i’m the shittiest artist i know
1 Like
Actually you can,if you haved the Idea first
As long as it makes me feel soemthing, its art. Its why hentai is art, makes me feel absolute disgust sometimes.
the ones you posted aren’t really abstract art pieces, they have actual shapes/patterns/structure
the first one is obviously a tree,
the second one is some sort of house structure,
the third one is an intricate pattern of actually well painted shapes
and the 4th is clearly a wave
That doesn’t mean they’re not abstract just because you can tell what they are
“Staircase, No. 2
Les Demoiselles d’Avignon”
This is a Picasso painting regarded as abstract (like many of his works). You can still easily tell what they are, but that doesn’t make it not abstract.
You’re thinking more along the lines of contemporary abstract art, which I don’t like either, but you still really can’t say it’s not art since it’s such a subjective concept.
3 Likes
It is if you at least try, in my opinion anyway, but WHAT IS THIS
IT GOES FOR 43 MILLION